Horza

Members
  • Content count

    8,599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Horza

  • Rank
    riots are tiny though / systems are huge

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    'Straya, love it or leave it!

Recent Profile Visitors

10,349 profile views
  1. Things that don't often get addressed when people talk about attacking North Korea: North Korea likely has dozens of compact nuclear devices ready to be mated to missiles. In addition to their almost-operational ICBMs and IRBMs North Korea has loads of operational ballistic missiles of the short and medium range variety. These missiles are all road mobile, and some are solid fuelled, which means they can be stored with fuel and fired in minutes. Their rocket forces are really big on hiding their missiles in caves and tunnels, and North Korea abounds in deep, forested valleys. Their stated nuclear strategy is to pre-emptively attack US bases and ports in South Korea and Japan to prevent an overwhelming conventional force assembling. Taken together, I don't see why anyone would be confident in a preventative war.
  2. That the person giving this defence of rule of law oversaw the incarceration, torture and execution of heretics tells you a lot about rule of law.
  3. The briefest look at American history should disabuse people of the idea that rule of law is incompatible with white supremacy and bloodshed.
  4. Why people think war with state with dozens of nuclear-armed short and medium range ballistic missiles pointed at South Korea and Japan is some kind of bitter pill it is necessary to swallow to prevent them acquiring roughly the same capability to hold US cities at risk as China escapes me.
  5. People who have definite policy views and political alignments with one side yet some reason feel the need to add their personal affront at the attitude of some on the other side as an equal or greater weight to their decision puzzle me. Isn't that an admission that one's considered political views are to a greater or lesser degree hostage to naked personal resentment?
  6. They do, it's just there are hundreds of equally compelling candidates for round the clock surveillance and you can't watch them all. This is not a unique situation, as evinced by the fact that almost every major terror European attack since 9/11 was committed by people known to the security services.
  7. Shattered. Rest well, Bonesy.
  8. Yep, all the big three UK intelligence agencies have expanded rosters but the scale of the problem is as Hereward outlined and the situation is the same elsewhere.
  9. What a goddamn prophetic movie that was.
  10. Get well Bonesy, you swaggering oaf.
  11. What do you mean "now"?
  12. Doesn't explain why he didn't bring it up in his comments for her eulogy. Here's what his colleague had to say about that:
  13. Fun thing about the Korean peninsula crisis is all three countries have first strike as their preferred option. NK has outright said (in its unique style) that its missiles and nukes are for destroying a potential invasion force in harbours and on the tarmac. Their last successful launch was a rocket drill, where they released a map with lines connecting the missile landing spots in the Sea of Japan to airbases and ports they could have hit. Responding to these developments, US contingency plans have also shifted to decapitation and pre-emptive strikes, and South Korea, which has its own missile program, has said that decapitation is on the menu if they get the faintest suspicion that Kim's sausage fingers are making for the big red button. This is the definition of an unstable situation. If this crisis accelerates in the days and weeks ahead - and it will: NK has a new bomb and possibly an ICBM in the works, and April 15 is Kim Il-Sung's birthday - all the actors will find themselves under increasing pressure to head off the possibility of being last to the button. The problem is one man's reasonable precautions to be ready in all contingencies are another man's preparation for a first strike.
  14. First bit of retaliation: What pisses Russia off about the strike isn't so much the damage to their guy's warplanes but the fact that this was a decision taken basically on a whim, in which they didn't ultimately matter. It's the project of the Putin cohort to return Russia to equal standing on the world stage, and this airstrike was a very clear indication that as far as Trump is concerned, they aren't equals. Ending the deconfliction line is a step toward trying to get the US to acknowledge that its Syrian campaigns exist on Russian sufferance, and there's going more risky steps ahead if President Fox and Friends doesn't get the picture.
  15. I don't think this reinforces this red line anywhere near as much as people are suggesting. For starters, this strike was basically theatre. Notice was given to avoid the possibility really triggering an escalation. This sort of action is meant to function as "next time there will be no warning" signalling, but it not only depends on the audience deeming the threat to be credible, it also requires them to place avoiding further strikes above other interests. For the Syrian government, making life hell for anyone inside opposition areas is essential to their strategy, something they've proven willing to pursue despite the risk of incurring US intervention. This latest gas attack is far from the first (though maybe each time it was the rebels assembling large quantities of potent nerve agent for use on themselves, who knows?) and I think there's reason to suspect it won't be the last, because a serious sustained attack is simply too big a leap into the unknown when there is demonstrably so little real US interest in the conflict, much less serious US interests at stake.